Comparing French and US hospital technologies: a directional input distance function approach

French and US hospital technologies are compared using directional input distance functions. The aggregation properties of the directional distance function allow comparison of hospital industry-level performance as well as standard firm-level performance with regard to productive efficiency. In addition, the underlying constituents of efficiency - in the short run, congestion and technical inefficiency, and in the long run, scale inefficiency - are analysed by decomposing the overall measure. By virtue of using the directional distance function, it is also possible to obtain an estimate of a lower bound on allocative inefficiency. It is found that French and US hospitals use quite different technologies. Long run scale inefficiencies cause most of the French hospitals' inefficiency, while short run technical inefficiency is the main source of overall productive inefficiency in the US hospitals

Mutual Funds and Institutional Investments: What is the Most Efficient Way to Set Up Individual Accounts in a Social Security System?

One of the biggest criticisms leveled at defined contribution individual account (IA) components of social security systems is that they are too expensive. This paper investigates the cost-effectiveness of three options for constructing funded social security pillars: 1) IA's invested in the retail market with relatively open choice, 2) IA's invested in the institutional market with constrained choice among investment companies, and 3) a centralized fund without individual accounts or differentiated investments across individuals. Our questions: What is the most cost-effective way to organize a mandatory IA system, how does the cost of an efficient IA system compare with that of a single centralized fund, and are the cost differentials large enough to outweigh the other important considerations? Our answers, based on empirical evidence about mutual and institutional funds in the U.S.: The retail market (option 1) allows individual investors to benefit from scale economies in asset management, but at the cost of high marketing expenses that are needed to attract and aggregate small sums of money into large pools. In contrast, a centralized fund (option 3) can be much cheaper because it achieves scale economies without high marketing costs, but gives workers no choice and hence is subject to political manipulation and misallocation of capital. Mandatory IA systems can be structured to get the best of both worlds: to obtain scale economies in asset management without incurring high marketing costs or sacrificing worker choice. To accomplish this requires centralized collections, a modest level of investor service and constrained choice. The system of constrained choice described in this paper (option 2) is much cheaper than the retail market and only slightly more expensive than a single centralized fund. We estimate that it will cost only .14-.18% of assets annually. These large administrative cost savings imply a Pareto improvement so long as choice is not constrained too much.'

Mutual funds and institutional investments - what is the most efficient way to set up individual accounts in a social security system?

One of the main criticisms of the defined-contribution, individual-account components of social security systems is that they are too expensive. The authors investigate the cost-effectiveness of three options for constructing funded social security pillars: * Individual accounts invested in the retail market with relatively open choice. * Individual accounts invested in the institutional market with constrained choice among investment companies. * A centralized fund without individual accounts or differentiated investments across individuals. The authors asked several questions: What is the most cost-effective way to organize a system with mandatory individual accounts? How does the cost of an efficient individual account system compare with that of a single centralized fund? And are the cost differentials great enough to outweigh other important considerations? The authors concentrate on countries with well-functioning financial markets, such as the United States, but make comparative references to developing countries. Based on empirical evidence about U.S. mutual and institutional funds, the authors found that the retail market (option 1) allows individual investors to benefit from scale economics in asset management - but atthe cost of the high marketing expenses needed to attract large pools of small investments. By contrast, a centralized fund (option 3) can be much cheaper because it achieves scale economies without high marketing costs. But it gives workers no choice and is subject to political manipulation and misallocation of capital. The system of constrained choice (option 2) is much cheaper than the retail option and only slightly more expensive than a single centralized fund. It allows scale economies in asset management and record-keeping while incurring low marketing costs and allowing significant worker choice. It is also more effectively insulated from political interference than a single centralized fund. The authors estimate that option 2 would cost only 0.14 percent-0.18 percent of assets annually. Such large administrative cost savings imply a Pareto improvement - so long as choice is not constrained"too much".Payment Systems&Infrastructure,Business Environment,International Terrorism&Counterterrorism,Economic Theory&Research,Agricultural Knowledge&Information Systems,International Terrorism&Counterterrorism,Economic Theory&Research,Business Environment,Business in Development,Agricultural Knowledge&Information Systems

The informativeness of stochastic frontier and programming frontier efficiency scores: Cost efficiency and other measures of bank holding company performance

This paper examines the properties of the X-inefficiencies in U.S. bank holding companies derived from both stochastic and linear programming frontiers. This examination allows the robustness of results across methods to be compared. While we find that calculated programming inefficiency scores are two to three times larger than those estimated using a stochastic frontier, the patterns of the scores across banks and time are similar, and there is a relatively high correlation of the rankings of banks' efficiencies under the two methods. However, when we examine the "informativeness" of the efficiency measured by the two different techniques, we find some large differences. We find evidence that the stochastic frontier scores are more closely related to risk-taking behavior, managerial competence, and bank stock returns. Based on these findings, we conclude that while both methods produce informative efficiency scores, for this data set decision makers should put more weight on the stochastic frontier efficiency estimates.Bank holding companies ; Banks and banking - Costs

The Size and Service Offering Efficiencies of U.S. Hospitals.

Hospital productivity has been a research topic for over two decades. We expand on this research to include measures of dis/economies of scope. By using the Free Coordination Hull (FCH) we are able to determine if hospitals in our sample can become more efficient if they provide more services (diseconomies of scope) or if two smaller hospitals with a reallocation of resources could become more efficient (economies of scope). Using data from the American Hospital Association for the years 2004-2007, we found variations among hospital markets (measured by the Core Based Statistical Area). We can determine whether dis/economies of scope exist by comparing the results from two linear programming problems. Focusing on four markets: Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Madison, WI, and New Orleans we found variations in how best these hospitals operating in these markets could change in order to increase both scale and scope efficiencies. This approach could be used by policy makers and managers in order to reduce costs by sharing, reducing, or expanding services in hospitals. Findings from a study such as this should aid reform programs by providing more information on the sources of hospital inefficiency.Hospital, Efficiency, Economies of Scope, Hospital Markets

Consistency conditions for regulatory analysis of financial institutions: a comparison of frontier efficiency methods

We propose a set of consistency conditions that frontier efficiency measures should meet to be most useful for regulatory analysis or other purposes. The efficiency estimates should be consistent in their efficiency levels, rankings, and identification of best and worst firms, consistent over time and with competitive conditions in the market, and consistent with standard nonfrontier measures of performance. We provide evidence on these conditions by evaluating and comparing efficiency estimates on U.S. bank efficiency from variants of all four of the major approaches -- DEA, SFA, TFA, and DFA -- and find mixed results.Financial institutions ; Bank supervision

The informativeness of stochastic frontier and programming frontier efficiency scores: Cost efficiency and other measures of bank holding company performance

This paper examines the properties of the X-inefficiencies in U.S. bank holding companies derived from both stochastic and linear programming frontiers. This examination allows the robustness of results across methods to be compared. While we find that calculated programming inefficiency scores are two to three times larger than those estimated using a stochastic frontier, the patterns of the scores across banks and time are similar, and there is a relatively high correlation of the rankings of banks' efficiencies under the two methods. However, when we examine the "informativeness" of the efficiency measured by the two different techniques, we find some large differences. We find evidence that the stochastic frontier scores are more closely related to risk-taking behavior, managerial competence, and bank stock returns. Based on these findings, we conclude that while both methods produce informative efficiency scores, for this data set decision makers should put more weight on the stochastic frontier efficiency estimates

The Biodiversity Forecasting Toolkit: Answering the ‘how much’, ‘what’, and ‘where’ of planning for biodiversity persistence

AbstractThis research reports on a new approach to conservation assessment that seeks to extend the target-based model traditionally underpinning systematic conservation planning. The Biodiversity Forecasting Tool (BFT) helps answer three important questions relating to regional biodiversity persistence: ‘how much’ biodiversity can persist for a given land-management scenario; ‘what’ habitats to focus conservation effort on; and ‘where’ in the landscape to undertake conservation action. The tool integrates fine-scaled variability in vegetation composition and structure with spatial context, which is critical for ensuring the viability of populations. Thus, a raster data framework is employed which deems each location or gridcell in a landscape as contributing to biodiversity benefits to various degrees. At its simplest, just two spatial inputs, vegetation community types and vegetation condition, are needed. Drawing on, as a case-study, a broad-scale biodiversity assessment for NSW, Australia, this paper reports on the successful application of the BFT tool for a variety of functions ranging from interactive scenario evaluation through to conservation benefits mapping